Another Skeptic Gets it Totally Wrong on The Shroud of Turin

[JimBowie1958]

Holy Shroud or clever hoax? | Fox News

But the Shroud’s mysterious image has a simple explanation, according to two credible investigators: professional skeptic Joe Nickell, and Dr. Emily Craig, a forensic anthropologist with years of experience as a medical illustrator.

Working independently, Craig and Nickell have both demonstrated that a medieval artist could have created the image with materials and techniques that were common in the 1300s.

How?

By applying a faint dusting of red ochre (a pigment made from ferrous oxide – an artist’s version of rust) to the linen.

Red ochre and dust-transfer were used 30,000 years ago, to make cave paintings in Spain and France, so it’s reasonable to think that a 14th-century artist in France could have used them. What’s more, a respected microscopist, Dr. Walter McCrone, detected red ochre in the image on the Shroud; he also found vermillion (a brighter red pigment) in the Shroud’s “bloodstains.” But the work of McCrone, Craig, and Nickell has been ignored or shouted down by those who disagree with them, or who don’t want to hear what they have to say.

The image on the Shroud is not red ochre, it is a discollored suger coating from the sugars left on the linen from the ancient manufacturing process of that time.

Shroud of Turin for Journalists - Carbon Dating Mistakes Fact Check

The shroud is sugar coated. A clear polysaccharide residue coats the outermost fibers of the cloth. In places, that residue has changed to a caramel-like substance. That brown substance forms the images.

The blood stains are in fact blood stains, and not ochre:

Immunological, fluorescence and spectrographic tests, as well as Rh and ABO typing of blood antigens, reveal that the stains are human blood. Many of the bloodstains have the distinctive forensic signature of clotting with red corpuscles about the edge of a clot with a clear yellowish halo of serum. The heme was converted into its parent porphyrin, and the spectra examined. This too, revealed the fact that bloodstains are blood. Microchemical tests for proteins were positive in blood areas. Much of this work is published in peer reviewed scientific journals including Archeological Chemistry: Organic, Inorganic, and Biochemical Analysis (American Chemical Society), Applied Optics and the Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal.

How the images were formed:
The Shroud of Turin's Strange Coating of Saccharides Turned Brown

1) Fibers, much thinner than human hair, were handspun together to form the yarn used to weave the linen cloth.

2) Individual lengths (hanks) of the yarn were bleached with potash. This is not an exacting method and thus some hanks of yarn were whiter than others.

How do we know this? The variation in bleaching caused a horizontal and vertical variegated appearance in the cloth; a faint plaid forming as different hanks of yarn were fed into the loom. As the cloth aged and naturally yellowed, the variegation became more pronounced as can be seen in the contrast enhanced photograph.

3) On the loom, warp (vertical) threads were coated with raw starch to make weaving easier. The starch kept the delicate linen yarn from fraying and made it easier to pass the shuttle with the weft yarn over and under the warp.

4) After weaving, the starch needed to be removed. To accomplish this, the cloth was washed in suds of soapwort.

How do we know this? There is, on the outermost fibers of the cloth a clear washing residue: a thin coating of starch fractions and the various saccharides found in soapwort: glucose, fucose, galactose, arabinose, xylose, rhamnose, and glucuronic acid.

Such a residue is normal in soap washing, even with rinsing. The residue is an evaporation concentration that forms on the outermost fibers of cloth during air drying. It forms on both sides of the cloth.

The residue is so thin it is difficult to see with an ordinary microscope. But we can see it with phase-contrast microscopy or a scanning electron microscope. We say it is superficial.

We don't know why but in places this residue has turned brown. It has turned into a caramel-like substance. And it is the brownish color, here and there, that makes up the image we see on the Shroud.

Of this we can be certain: the image is not paint and the polysaccharide residue is not is not a photo-sensitive emulsion.

Dating from the lignin in th e Shroud:
Clues from Vanillin Showed Something Was Wrong in the Carbon 14 Dating

How the Carbon14 dating was wrong:
Other Clues Something Was Amiss in the Carbon 14 Dating

It is amazing how journalists cant get the most basic facts straight then go around telling the world their mistakes as though they are established in fact.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Holy Shroud or clever hoax? | Fox News

But the Shroud’s mysterious image has a simple explanation, according to two credible investigators: professional skeptic Joe Nickell, and Dr. Emily Craig, a forensic anthropologist with years of experience as a medical illustrator.

Working independently, Craig and Nickell have both demonstrated that a medieval artist could have created the image with materials and techniques that were common in the 1300s.

How?

By applying a faint dusting of red ochre (a pigment made from ferrous oxide – an artist’s version of rust) to the linen.

Red ochre and dust-transfer were used 30,000 years ago, to make cave paintings in Spain and France, so it’s reasonable to think that a 14th-century artist in France could have used them. What’s more, a respected microscopist, Dr. Walter McCrone, detected red ochre in the image on the Shroud; he also found vermillion (a brighter red pigment) in the Shroud’s “bloodstains.” But the work of McCrone, Craig, and Nickell has been ignored or shouted down by those who disagree with them, or who don’t want to hear what they have to say.

The image on the Shroud is not red ochre, it is a discollored suger coating from the sugars left on the linen from the ancient manufacturing process of that time.

Shroud of Turin for Journalists - Carbon Dating Mistakes Fact Check

The shroud is sugar coated. A clear polysaccharide residue coats the outermost fibers of the cloth. In places, that residue has changed to a caramel-like substance. That brown substance forms the images.

The blood stains are in fact blood stains, and not ochre:

Immunological, fluorescence and spectrographic tests, as well as Rh and ABO typing of blood antigens, reveal that the stains are human blood. Many of the bloodstains have the distinctive forensic signature of clotting with red corpuscles about the edge of a clot with a clear yellowish halo of serum. The heme was converted into its parent porphyrin, and the spectra examined. This too, revealed the fact that bloodstains are blood. Microchemical tests for proteins were positive in blood areas. Much of this work is published in peer reviewed scientific journals including Archeological Chemistry: Organic, Inorganic, and Biochemical Analysis (American Chemical Society), Applied Optics and the Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal.

How the images were formed:
The Shroud of Turin's Strange Coating of Saccharides Turned Brown

1) Fibers, much thinner than human hair, were handspun together to form the yarn used to weave the linen cloth.

2) Individual lengths (hanks) of the yarn were bleached with potash. This is not an exacting method and thus some hanks of yarn were whiter than others.

How do we know this? The variation in bleaching caused a horizontal and vertical variegated appearance in the cloth; a faint plaid forming as different hanks of yarn were fed into the loom. As the cloth aged and naturally yellowed, the variegation became more pronounced as can be seen in the contrast enhanced photograph.

3) On the loom, warp (vertical) threads were coated with raw starch to make weaving easier. The starch kept the delicate linen yarn from fraying and made it easier to pass the shuttle with the weft yarn over and under the warp.

4) After weaving, the starch needed to be removed. To accomplish this, the cloth was washed in suds of soapwort.

How do we know this? There is, on the outermost fibers of the cloth a clear washing residue: a thin coating of starch fractions and the various saccharides found in soapwort: glucose, fucose, galactose, arabinose, xylose, rhamnose, and glucuronic acid.

Such a residue is normal in soap washing, even with rinsing. The residue is an evaporation concentration that forms on the outermost fibers of cloth during air drying. It forms on both sides of the cloth.

The residue is so thin it is difficult to see with an ordinary microscope. But we can see it with phase-contrast microscopy or a scanning electron microscope. We say it is superficial.

We don't know why but in places this residue has turned brown. It has turned into a caramel-like substance. And it is the brownish color, here and there, that makes up the image we see on the Shroud.

Of this we can be certain: the image is not paint and the polysaccharide residue is not is not a photo-sensitive emulsion.

Dating from the lignin in th e Shroud:
Clues from Vanillin Showed Something Was Wrong in the Carbon 14 Dating

How the Carbon14 dating was wrong:
Other Clues Something Was Amiss in the Carbon 14 Dating

It is amazing how journalists cant get the most basic facts straight then go around telling the world their mistakes as though they are established in fact.

Once again evidence that shows faulty assumptions lead to bad dating methods that can't be trusted.

I wonder where ol Doc is.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Once again evidence that shows faulty assumptions lead to bad dating methods that can't be trusted.

Well in this case, the relic was being protected by taking all the peices from one small area, but that caused them all to have the same flaw since that was an area that was not an original part of the Shroud.

Not so much bad science as a bad combo of science artificially restricted by unscientific considerations.

 

[amrchaos]

When did the Catholic church obtained the shroud?

 

[JimBowie1958]

When did the Catholic church obtained the shroud?

The Huse of Savoy gave it to the Vatican, IIRC, in 1983.

 

[amrchaos]

When did the Catholic church obtained the shroud?

The Huse of Savoy gave it to the Vatican, IIRC, in 1983.

When did the Huse of Savoy recieved it? I guess I should have asked that question first.

I thought the Shroud belonged to the RCats before 1983.

 

[PredFan]

The only thing this tells me is that the shroud is not a modern-day hoax. But we knew that already. It's an ancient hoax. If I remember right it was created back in the 1400s. It most defintely NOT 2000 years old.

 

[amrchaos]

The only thing this tells me is that the shroud is not a modern-day hoax. But we knew that already. It's an ancient hoax. If I remember right it was created back in the 1400s. It most defintely NOT 2000 years old.

What I find amazing is how well maintained the shroud is considering that there is no mention of how it was preserved between the death of hrist to the 14 centurary.

Either the people that held it knew of its significance, or it is a hoax. Not much history to refer to pre-dedication of the shroud.

 

[uscitizen]

I am more concerned about the image of Jesus in a taco shell.

 

[amrchaos]

I am more concerned about the image of Jesus in a taco shell.

Why do people claim to see Jesus in such ordinary and mundane objects.

Now if they saw Jesus in some remote mountains or Jesus riding on a horse(or donkey) in the clouds, now that something that should get reported and filmed.

But in Tacos shells, toast, ink blots---why would Jesus bother with those things?

 

[PredFan]

Here's the best way to tell that the shroud is a hoax:

It shows you exactly what you expect to see.

I shows a man who looks very similar to the Christ in the DaVinci paintings, back in a time when it would have been blasphemous to picture Christ as a Jew, with hebrew features to his face.

 

[PredFan]

The shroud was created in the mid-1300s and the man who made it confessed. A Bishop from france, where the shroud was at the time, wrote a letter to pope Clementine stating exactly that. In addition, the linen is a herringbone weave, and shrouds made in Jesus's time werent as complicated as that. They were a cross-weave stitch. Several samples of burial srouds from Isreal that date back to the time of Jesus show that.

It's an antique, but it isn't Jesus's shroud.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Here's the best way to tell that the shroud is a hoax:

It shows you exactly what you expect to see.

I shows a man who looks very similar to the Christ in the DaVinci paintings, back in a time when it would have been blasphemous to picture Christ as a Jew, with hebrew features to his face.

Dude, did it EVER occur to you that just MAYBE DaVinci used the image from the Shroud for his paintings?

And whats up with this assertion he doesnt look Hebrew? How the hell would you know what a Hebrew looked like back then? You dont.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I am more concerned about the image of Jesus in a taco shell.

Why do people claim to see Jesus in such ordinary and mundane objects.

Now if they saw Jesus in some remote mountains or Jesus riding on a horse(or donkey) in the clouds, now that something that should get reported and filmed.

But in Tacos shells, toast, ink blots---why would Jesus bother with those things?

It's suggestive emotionalism.

Dont see the connection with the Shroud.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The shroud was created in the mid-1300s and the man who made it confessed. A Bishop from france, where the shroud was at the time, wrote a letter to pope Clementine stating exactly that. In addition, the linen is a herringbone weave, and shrouds made in Jesus's time werent as complicated as that. They were a cross-weave stitch. Several samples of burial srouds from Isreal that date back to the time of Jesus show that.

It's an antique, but it isn't Jesus's shroud.

Again, you speak in ignorance.

Herringbone weave has been found from material dating from the 4th century BC.
How old is both linen and herringbone weaving?

 

[JimBowie1958]

The only thing this tells me is that the shroud is not a modern-day hoax. But we knew that already. It's an ancient hoax. If I remember right it was created back in the 1400s. It most defintely NOT 2000 years old.

What I find amazing is how well maintained the shroud is considering that there is no mention of how it was preserved between the death of hrist to the 14 centurary.

Either the people that held it knew of its significance, or it is a hoax. Not much history to refer to pre-dedication of the shroud.

It has been stored out of daylight and little access to fesh air.

And yes, it has a long history of reverential care, and if it is the Mandilion of the Byzantine era then it was revered as a relic going back to Edessa shortly after the start of the church.

 

[JimBowie1958]

When did the Catholic church obtained the shroud?

The Huse of Savoy gave it to the Vatican, IIRC, in 1983.

When did the Huse of Savoy recieved it? I guess I should have asked that question first.

I thought the Shroud belonged to the RCats before 1983.

As I understand it, the Shroud was sort of on loan from th e House of Savoy for display and safe keeping. The fire that damaged it was while it was under the care of the House of Savoy, IIRC.